In her 1993 U.S. Supreme Court nomination hearing, Ruth Bader Ginsburg vowed she would make “no hints, no forecasts, no previews” on issues that might face the Court. But she did respond to some questions about past high court rulings, agreeing, for example, with the decision in Moore v. East Cleveland that a housing ordinance’s definition of “family,” which excluded a grandmother living with her son and two grandsons, violated the grandmother’s due process rights.
In his 2005 hearing, John Roberts Jr. said he had “no quarrel” with Moore. But in answers to questions submitted after the hearing, he explained “no quarrel” did not mean he was agreeing with that decision or four others with which he said he had “no quarrel,” only that he would treat them as precedents.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
